Auditing the Use of Language Models to Guide Hiring Decisions
0
Sign in to get full access
Overview
- This paper examines the use of language models, such as large language models (LLMs), in hiring decisions and the potential for biases to be introduced.
- The researchers conduct an audit of language models used in hiring to understand how they may perpetuate or amplify biases against certain demographic groups.
- The study uses synthetic job applications to assess the outputs of language models when evaluating candidates, with a focus on how the models may discriminate based on factors like race, gender, and age.
Plain English Explanation
Language models are powerful AI systems that can generate human-like text. Companies have started using these models to help with tasks like reviewing job applications, as they can quickly analyze the content and provide assessments. However, there are concerns that these models may inadvertently introduce biases into the hiring process, disadvantaging certain groups of people.
The researchers in this study wanted to better understand how language models might be biased when evaluating job applicants. They created a set of synthetic job applications that represented a diverse range of candidates, including variations in factors like race, gender, and age. They then fed these applications into various language models to see how the models would assess the candidates.
The goal was to audit the language models and identify any patterns of unfair or biased treatment toward certain demographic groups. This is an important issue, as the use of these models in hiring could lead to systematic discrimination if the biases are not addressed.
Technical Explanation
The researchers used a dataset of synthetic job applications that they generated to represent a diverse range of candidates. They then fed these applications into various language models, including GPT-3, and analyzed the outputs to assess how the models evaluated the candidates.
The synthetic application dataset was carefully constructed to include variations in factors like race, gender, and age, allowing the researchers to examine the role of implicit biases in the language models' assessments. The researchers looked at metrics like the perceived quality of the application, the likelihood of the candidate being hired, and the presence of stereotypical language in the model's output.
By auditing the language models, the researchers were able to identify patterns of unfair or biased treatment toward certain demographic groups. This provides important insights into the potential for discrimination when these models are used in the hiring process.
Critical Analysis
The researchers acknowledge several limitations and areas for further research. For example, the synthetic application dataset, while carefully constructed, may not fully capture the nuances and complexities of real-world job applications. Additionally, the study focused on a limited set of language models, and it's possible that other models may exhibit different patterns of bias.
The researchers also note that the biases observed in the language models may reflect broader societal biases, rather than being inherent to the models themselves. This raises questions about the extent to which language models can be held accountable for perpetuating these biases, and the role that human oversight and intervention may need to play in mitigating them.
Further research is needed to explore the biases in large language models and to develop strategies for reducing or eliminating them. This is a crucial issue as the use of these models in high-stakes decisions, such as hiring, can have significant consequences for individuals and society.
Conclusion
This study provides valuable insights into the potential for biases in language models used for hiring decisions. The researchers' auditing of these models reveals patterns of unfair or biased treatment toward certain demographic groups, highlighting the need for careful consideration and mitigation of these biases before deploying such models in real-world hiring processes.
As the use of language models in decision-making continues to grow, it is essential that we understand and address the potential for discrimination that these models may introduce. This research provides a starting point for further exploration of bias in large language models and the development of strategies to ensure fairness and equity in their application.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
0
Auditing the Use of Language Models to Guide Hiring Decisions
Johann D. Gaebler, Sharad Goel, Aziz Huq, Prasanna Tambe
Regulatory efforts to protect against algorithmic bias have taken on increased urgency with rapid advances in large language models (LLMs), which are machine learning models that can achieve performance rivaling human experts on a wide array of tasks. A key theme of these initiatives is algorithmic auditing, but current regulations -- as well as the scientific literature -- provide little guidance on how to conduct these assessments. Here we propose and investigate one approach for auditing algorithms: correspondence experiments, a widely applied tool for detecting bias in human judgements. In the employment context, correspondence experiments aim to measure the extent to which race and gender impact decisions by experimentally manipulating elements of submitted application materials that suggest an applicant's demographic traits, such as their listed name. We apply this method to audit candidate assessments produced by several state-of-the-art LLMs, using a novel corpus of applications to K-12 teaching positions in a large public school district. We find evidence of moderate race and gender disparities, a pattern largely robust to varying the types of application material input to the models, as well as the framing of the task to the LLMs. We conclude by discussing some important limitations of correspondence experiments for auditing algorithms.
Read more4/5/2024
0
Do Large Language Models Discriminate in Hiring Decisions on the Basis of Race, Ethnicity, and Gender?
Haozhe An, Christabel Acquaye, Colin Wang, Zongxia Li, Rachel Rudinger
We examine whether large language models (LLMs) exhibit race- and gender-based name discrimination in hiring decisions, similar to classic findings in the social sciences (Bertrand and Mullainathan, 2004). We design a series of templatic prompts to LLMs to write an email to a named job applicant informing them of a hiring decision. By manipulating the applicant's first name, we measure the effect of perceived race, ethnicity, and gender on the probability that the LLM generates an acceptance or rejection email. We find that the hiring decisions of LLMs in many settings are more likely to favor White applicants over Hispanic applicants. In aggregate, the groups with the highest and lowest acceptance rates respectively are masculine White names and masculine Hispanic names. However, the comparative acceptance rates by group vary under different templatic settings, suggesting that LLMs' race- and gender-sensitivity may be idiosyncratic and prompt-sensitive.
Read more6/18/2024
0
Decoding Biases: Automated Methods and LLM Judges for Gender Bias Detection in Language Models
Shachi H Kumar, Saurav Sahay, Sahisnu Mazumder, Eda Okur, Ramesh Manuvinakurike, Nicole Beckage, Hsuan Su, Hung-yi Lee, Lama Nachman
Large Language Models (LLMs) have excelled at language understanding and generating human-level text. However, even with supervised training and human alignment, these LLMs are susceptible to adversarial attacks where malicious users can prompt the model to generate undesirable text. LLMs also inherently encode potential biases that can cause various harmful effects during interactions. Bias evaluation metrics lack standards as well as consensus and existing methods often rely on human-generated templates and annotations which are expensive and labor intensive. In this work, we train models to automatically create adversarial prompts to elicit biased responses from target LLMs. We present LLM- based bias evaluation metrics and also analyze several existing automatic evaluation methods and metrics. We analyze the various nuances of model responses, identify the strengths and weaknesses of model families, and assess where evaluation methods fall short. We compare these metrics to human evaluation and validate that the LLM-as-a-Judge metric aligns with human judgement on bias in response generation.
Read more8/9/2024
0
AuditLLM: A Tool for Auditing Large Language Models Using Multiprobe Approach
Maryam Amirizaniani, Elias Martin, Tanya Roosta, Aman Chadha, Chirag Shah
As Large Language Models (LLMs) are integrated into various sectors, ensuring their reliability and safety is crucial. This necessitates rigorous probing and auditing to maintain their effectiveness and trustworthiness in practical applications. Subjecting LLMs to varied iterations of a single query can unveil potential inconsistencies in their knowledge base or functional capacity. However, a tool for performing such audits with a easy to execute workflow, and low technical threshold is lacking. In this demo, we introduce ``AuditLLM,'' a novel tool designed to audit the performance of various LLMs in a methodical way. AuditLLM's primary function is to audit a given LLM by deploying multiple probes derived from a single question, thus detecting any inconsistencies in the model's comprehension or performance. A robust, reliable, and consistent LLM is expected to generate semantically similar responses to variably phrased versions of the same question. Building on this premise, AuditLLM generates easily interpretable results that reflect the LLM's consistency based on a single input question provided by the user. A certain level of inconsistency has been shown to be an indicator of potential bias, hallucinations, and other issues. One could then use the output of AuditLLM to further investigate issues with the aforementioned LLM. To facilitate demonstration and practical uses, AuditLLM offers two key modes: (1) Live mode which allows instant auditing of LLMs by analyzing responses to real-time queries; and (2) Batch mode which facilitates comprehensive LLM auditing by processing multiple queries at once for in-depth analysis. This tool is beneficial for both researchers and general users, as it enhances our understanding of LLMs' capabilities in generating responses, using a standardized auditing platform.
Read more6/19/2024